Party on, SANDAG

Jackpot junket

SANDAG’S annual treat to Barona is just another slap in the face to San Diegans (“SANDAG returning to Barona for its annual retreat,” Local, Feb. 2). And to add insult, they want to be at a place where it is quiet and secluded so that their Moment flows with inspiration. Really? Their silence will only be broken by the sound of “cha-ching!” If they need to go that far and to a casino to plan out how to spend our public money, then they need their inspiration from some other source. Shame on you SANDAG. Thanks to Mark Walker for that revealing article. – Pat Fierro, Bay Park

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

Clearing the air

Your recent article on the effects of the San Onofre shutdown (“A year off the grid,” Business, Jan. 27) needs some fact checking. The report commented on the extra pollution in San Diego due to our burning of more natural gas to make up for the lack of nuclear-generated power.

Natural gas (4 parts hydrogen, 1 part carbon) is one of the cleanest fuels available and contributes NO traditional pollutants. The byproducts of burning natural gas are water and carbon dioxide. Natural gas contributes none of the serious pollutants that are emitted from automobiles that cause smog, or sulfur from coal-burning that causes acid rain.

Water vapor is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is purported to cause global warming but if it is also affecting our air quality, we had better all start holding our breath. – Dave Hock, Poway

Defense cuts looming

In response to “Navy budget woes threaten 6,000 local jobs” (Local, Feb. 2): It’s actually worse, and the Pelosi philosophy, “We’ll have to pass the bill to know what’s in it,” applies: We’ll have to experience more unemployment to know how bad it really is. But the crises will expand beyond the San Diego waterfront. It will affect our ability to influence international events.

The June 2012 “San Diego Military Economic Impact Study” opened with a comment: “The Budget Control Act of 2011 imposed automatic cuts to the 2013 budget which would impose devastating effects on the U.S. military.” That was eight months ago, and the administration and Congress have been whistling past the graveyard ever since. The $1.2 trillion cumulative cut (Gates and sequestration) over a decade will hamper United States diplomacy.

The administration announced a strategy last year to pivot on Asia. Where are the gutted services in this calculus? Where will the ships come from to patrol the South China Sea without maintenance and fuel resources? The Defense Department has announced intentions to expand our Africa “footprint.” Really? With what, a few Special Forces advisers?

Demonstrated weakness abroad has always led to ill-adventures by hostile interests. It reminds me of the old Fram oil filter ad: “Pay me now or pay me later.” – George R. Worthington, Chula Vista

Concerning the lamentations of various generals about the “hollowing out” of our military, it is worth pointing out that we are among the least vulnerable nations in the world, surrounded as we are by allies on the north and south and oceans on the east and west. We are also stone-cold broke.

These facts together suggest that major reductions in “defense” spending are in order. We might also recall, as pointed out by Andrew Bacevich, that although we call it the Department of Defense, it doesn’t actually do defense. Its purpose is to project American military power around the world. I don’t think we can afford this any more. – Thomas Alden, Borrego Springs

Who needs fatigues?

If you don’t think some women are big enough, strong enough, tough enough, mean enough or ready for combat, may I suggest your shopping at Walmart the first of the month! – James D. Lemon, San Diego

Looking both ways at red-light cameras

Mayor Filner announced Friday that he will discontinue the red-light camera program in San Diego (“S.D. red-light cameras about to be turned off,” Local reports, Feb. 1). At the news conference to make the announcement, the mayor surrounded himself with police to emphasize his message of ensuring safety for San Diegans.

The dialogue surrounding red-light cameras too often fails to consider a major benefit of these cameras: safety. In San Diego, 22 percent of all traffic deaths are pedestrians, nearly double the national average of 13 percent. Our city needs traffic safety measures in our communities to make walking a safe choice for all. Red-light cameras are one tool in the toolbox to achieve these benefits, just as clearly-marked crosswalks, bike lanes and pedestrian walk signals.

Red-light cameras work to prevent injury and save lives of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and all other road users, and they are effective in changing the behavior of drivers. A 2011 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found red-light cameras reduced fatal red-light-running crashes by 62 percent in San Diego.

With the elimination of red-light cameras in our city, we are losing an effective tool to promote safety. We recognize this is only one measure of many. However, it does provide an opportunity for the mayor to put together a plan that will ensure safety for everyone on San Diego’s streets – just as he stated in his campaign. We look forward to working with the mayor to create this plan. – Kathleen Ferrier, Policy Manager, Walk San Diego

As a Realtor who logs 20,000-plus miles countywide each year, over the years I have seen several rear-end collisions at intersections with these cameras, especially in the left-hand turn lanes.

Mayor Bob Filner has done a great service to us San Diegans and has made good on his campaign promise. Kudos to Mayor Filner for ridding our streets of this revenue-enhancement menace. – Edward Mracek, La Jolla

A rough start for Filner

In response to “Filner finally opens up to media on topics” (Local, Jan. 31): What is Mayor Filner thinking? I thought when a new mayor takes office there will always be changes and new personnel, and San Diego council members and all city workers would welcome him with open arms! But in this case Mr. Filner seemed to have made everyone mad. His arrogant attitude not talking with the media or board of directors, and even City Council members, has hade us all uneasy with his practice to do closed-door meetings. Me, personally – I don’t want to give more drugs to people that have a sprained eyebrow! – Paul Caronna, Point Loma

The firearms debate

I wanted to shed some new light on the gun debate. Being a law enforcement officer and firearms instructor I get the public’s fear of firearms. Let me just say this: Law enforcement and the military are not capable of being everywhere all the time, especially during a natural disaster where looting and civil unrest are very real threats.

I have read a number of articles where people have mentioned assault weapons in the hands of our citizens against a mighty military force such as the U.S. military would be useless. Why don’t we poll Russian and U.S. soldiers who fought in Afghanistan how effective an untrained but determined civil militia can be against tanks, air support, etc. I want our society to be safe and prosper like most others do, but let’s be logical in our approach not emotional.

I’ll end with this, Since the maximum speed limit is 70 mph in California, why do we need and sell cars that exceed that limit? Addressing this issue before a gun debate would certainly save many more lives, including our children. – Dave DiCarlo, San Diego

[Sylvester] Stallone is correct when he states that “assault weapons” cannot be use for hunting (“Sly favors gun control,” People, Feb. 2). True assault weapons, which have a fully automatic function, are not legal for general hunting use in any of the 50 states. The semi-automatic AR-15, which delivers only one shot per pull of the trigger and which is at the heart of the current uproar, however, is an outstanding platform for a multitude of shooting sports, including hunting. The remarkable adaptability, shooting comfort and accuracy of the AR and its small-caliber 5.56 cartridge have made it the first choice of many competitors in internationally sanctioned target competitions, as well as the highly specialized hunting of predators, such as coyotes.

These facts and more are readily available on any magazine rack to anyone interested in actual facts, rather than movie legends. – John Turner, San Diego

California legislators are lining up new legislation to try and further curtail the Second Amendment in this state (“Calif. lawmakers weigh range of gun controls,” Jan. 30).

California already has some of the nation’s toughest laws that the fees are trying to catch up with. Registration, background-check and gun-show loopholes that exist elsewhere do not exist in California, so it makes absolutely no sense to pile on more needless law. This knee-jerk reaction to external crisis only serves to punish law abiders and continue the incremental destruction of our liberties, one statute at a time.

Encourage your legislators to focus on job production and spending cuts in the state and cease their quixotic attraction to gun control laws that benefit no one. – William W. Bock Jr., Alpine

Work permits create path to citizenship

OK, let’s take a look at the new immigration proposals, at least as I understand them:

First, to be eligible for amnesty (what else can you reasonably call it?) an individual must undergo a criminal-background check to determine if he/she has committed a crime. Well, if that person crossed into the United States illegally then they’ve violated a federal law. Is that not a crime? Ergo, all 11 million undocumented crossers are criminals. The reason for crossing is irrelevant, as Jean Valjean [in “Les Misérables”] unfortunately discovered. (Children who were brought along is another issue, as the president so correctly pointed out.)

Second, I personally cannot support any legislation that would grant to scofflaws something as wonderful as U.S. citizenship. That would make those who have tried to enter our country legally a bunch of chumps. However, deportation for the majority of these immigrants is out of the question. It’s unreasonable and not doable. But there is a middle ground. In Canada it’s called a guest worker program.

The United States discontinued its Bracero Program that worked so effectively for many years following World War II. That left our farmers, construction companies, the hospitality industry and others no recourse but to hire illegals.

Now politicians pandering for votes go way overboard in attempting to rectify the situation. I believe that work permits leading to permanent residency, not citizenship, would be more in line with what the American people could embrace and would be more likely to pass the House. – Jim Bartlett, Alpine

Debating belief

In response to “Local atheists believe billboard will help their cause” (Local, Jan. 31): The arrogance of atheists is seen in the U-T story about their promotional billboard, “Atheism A personal relationship with reality.” If you believe in nothing, you can have reality; people of faith cannot.

The article was about how to expand their ranks and sow doubt about religion. Why? An atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being(s). What is the abiding need for converts to nothing? The majority of civilizations have maintained a belief in a higher power or intellect, whatever form. Whatever people get out of this – comfort, solace, need, intellectual satisfaction – the need appears to go back 300,000 or 50,000 or 13,000 years, depending on interpretation of the evidence, but clearly by the beginning of recorded history. Why deconstruct what may be a human need?

Silverman, president of American Atheists, said religion is the most divisive force in the universe; yes, for both good and evil. What is offered/gained by a belief in nothing, which can’t even be logically stated? Name one great benefit atheism offers? The atheist’s answer is “reality.” Since God’s existence or lack of existence can’t be proven either way, atheists have no better claim than believers. But they have the truth, despite lack of any scientific support. Frankly, reality’s overrated, and I’ll take a little solace where I can find it. – Noel Spaid, Del Mar

What are San Diego atheists mad about this week?

Why would they even need a billboard to tout the reasonableness of their position?

1) The Boy Scouts reveal, to great acclaim, that they will relax the ban on gays. What about the child that has no belief in God, either through his own precocious reasoning process or by adopting the views of his parents? This boy remains on the outside and there is no general uproar that equality should extend to religion (or lack thereof) in this organization that enjoys tax-exempt status and is subsidized by all citizens.

2) The availability and financing of contraceptives through health care plans in religious nonprofits is again debated. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and contraception is legal. While moral concerns may hinder financing by faith groups, why should they care if the government supports it? All the people that don’t want contraception are already not getting it. Control of the womb is a core right for all women and especially for this those trying to climb from the depths of poverty. The number of children does affect family finances.

3) The reverend in the U-T article on Thursday (“Local atheists believe billboard will help their cause,” Local, Jan. 31) “welcomes the debate.” That’s like welcoming the rising sun. The game is on; nonbelievers’ numbers are growing rapidly and our voices will count more in the future. – Rick Stravinsky, San Diego

Regarding the “atheist billboard”: I am a conservative Orthodox Christian and an American. As a Christian I cannot think of a single reason to be “offended” by this advertisement; it does no harm to me or Christ Jesus. Secondly, this is America, and if someone wants to spend a lot of money telling people what they do not believe in that is fine with me. Now how about some interesting news. – Robert Keirsey, San Diego

Many facets to anti-abortion effort

“Who is the advocate for these children?” John Martin asked in his letter to the editor, Jan. 29. We, the pro-life people are advocates for the unborn. Brian Clowes from Human Life International states, “The primary weakness of the pro-life movement is that it has too many fans and not enough team players willing to do something. You don’t have to picket or sidewalk counsel outside an abortion facility; you can volunteer for a local crisis pregnancy center or help out with the newsletter of a local pro-life group or start a pro-life group in your church or school. Most Americans call themselves pro-life, but more than 95 percent of pro-life people allow pro-life activists to be their team on the field of battle. They never quite get around to doing something concrete for pre-born children. They are either too busy or too afraid to get involved directly.”

This Jan. 22, the 40th anniversary of legalized abortion in our country did mobilize pro-lifers to take action and physically witness to the sanctity and dignity of life in the womb. We saw this in Washington, D.C., and on the West Coast Walk for Life as well as in San Diego. One-half million marched in D.C. and those who have had abortions are silent no more and have sought healing in D.C., San Francisco and San Diego.

We are all engaged in the struggle for life and we all have a role to play in it. So don’t stand down, get involved for life. – Susan J. Kent, Rancho Bernardo

Debating the influence of wealth

Entrepreneur Dane Chapin should have done a little more, and more relevant, research before submitting his article (“Politicians hurting state by penalizing millionaires,” Opinion, Feb. 1). Rather than doing a little math he should have read (like I did) the paper written by professors [Cristobal Young] and [Charles Varner] from Stanford and Princeton as referenced [Jan. 29] by letter writer [B. Chris Brewster]. They conclude in their paper that tax increases and tax cuts had very little effect on millionaire migration. Divorce had a far greater effect. Many million-dollar earners jump in and quickly out of that bracket. Many serial million-dollar earners who are not tied to the state (as doctors and lawyers and business owners tend to be), like Phil or Tiger, establish residences in more tax-friendly states like Texas or Florida early on in their soon-to-be and hopefully long-lasting lucrative careers.

Chapin argues that if Phil left the state, 4,400 wage earners would have to take up residence in the state to make up for the taxes California will no longer get from Phil. Mathematically that is true but simply looking at migration (both in and out) misses the mark by a very wide margin. Everyone who stays will pay more taxes. Even if a [bus]load of Phils leave and no one takes their places, the state still comes out way ahead.

Go east, Dane Chapin, maybe to Washington, D.C., where bad math is used every day to support bad arguments. – Paul Jester, Scripps Ranch

Mendacious politicians who pretend to tax the wealthy ignore the difference between income and wealth. Really wealthy people need no income, because they have enough money to live well for the rest of their lives and leave children wealthy when they die. But people with big incomes are often not wealthy, because they are deeply in debt, spending money as fast or faster than they are earning it, stimulating the economy, and creating jobs. High taxes on big incomes hurt poor and middle-class people who can’t find good jobs. Really wealthy people with political influence are often beneficiaries of government subsidies not affected by taxes on income. – John Myers, San Diego

It’s timing, not courage

Dana Milbank´s commentary, “Rubio’s bold move” (Opinion, Jan. 31), described the wrong person taking a “courageous” stand. Colin Powell´s description of the “dark vein of intolerance” that permeates throughout the GOP, was a testament of true political courage. Judging by the out right vitriol from conservative pundits, or the strange silence by fellow Republicans, it is safe to assume that the former secretary of state’s apt description and tough-love advice was not well received.

Marco Rubio has the fortune of being the RIGHT person, at the right place, in the right time. After the heavy losses the GOP recently suffered, out of the need of political survival, the party is a lot more susceptive to immigration reform, in a feeble attempt to get more Latino votes. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Brian Sandoval among other Latino Republicans, get the benefit of the party´s promotion to put a Hispanic face on the party. Sen. Rubio is not “courageous” as Milbank´s gushing “love letter” insinuates, he is nothing more than a beneficiary of excellent political timing. – John Payne, San Diego